On 8/19/21 4:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:23AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> +static inline bool prot_guest_has(unsigned int attr)
>
> No reall need to have this inline. In fact I'd suggest we havea the
> prototype in a common header so that everyone must
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:23AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> +static inline bool prot_guest_has(unsigned int attr)
No reall need to have this inline. In fact I'd suggest we havea the
prototype in a common header so that everyone must implement it out
of line.
On 8/17/21 3:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:23AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will
>> be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so
>> the implementation will initially only
Tom Lendacky writes:
> Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will
> be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so
> the implementation will initially only support the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT
> attribute.
>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman
> Cc: Benjamin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:23AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will
> be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so
> the implementation will initially only support the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT
> attribute.
>
>
Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will
be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so
the implementation will initially only support the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT
attribute.
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Paul Mackerras
